Wednesday, May 18, 2011

fotos de bebes hermosos

Fotos de Bebe Hermoso

Xero910

Apr 28, 08:03 PM

The UV protection necessary for the white iPhone didn't come out of thin air. The added thickness was likely to provide an additional layer of protection. I'd be curious to see its innards, which is no doubt just around the corner. C'mon iFixit, rip it apart!

Cute Babies 09 Bebés Hermosos

ciTiger

May 4, 08:37 AM

I see a rumor coming tomorrow to contradict this... :D

But this is the first year since the release that so man rumors regarding this are appearing...

Fotos de ebe hermoso busca

whooleytoo

Apr 13, 02:24 PM

Not a single analyst has explained WHY this would be better for Apple than simply selling more Apple TVs. They just say it like it makes sense and expect us to believe them.

I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.

WHY would Apple want to take on shipments of large, expensive packages?

WHY would Apple want to limit their market for a new product to people who want an entirely new TV?

WHY do you think Apple cares more about what logo is on the back of the TV that by what software is showing up on the screen?

And WHY isn't the Apple TV good enough for the goal of getting the iOS and iTunes worlds into the living room?

I think the changes to the latest Apple TV is a sign of where Apple wants to be headed. The next Apple TV will be even smaller and come free when you buy a Mac, iPad, or iPhone. Wait and see! Just like giving e-mail away helps Google's ecosystem, so does getting Apple TVs into people's houses help Apple's ecosystem.

Selling some $2,000 TV doesn't help with that.

I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense. But that doesn't mean I think Apple will never do it! Apple (i.e. Jobs?) are obsessed with controlling the entire user-experience, and as such might love to add their own HDTV to complete the solution.

There's a lot of potential to add a lot more integration between TV and Mac/PC. Typically this has just been "PC as a video/audio source for the TV", but you could add on-screen notifications/messages even while watching other sources (such as cable), far better TV-based browsers, faster & better looking TV-guides etc.

Yes there is a lot of competition out there, but Apple are quite good at taking on a "commodity" low-margin market and adding value to it and thriving. And I'd love to see the design they come up with.

18k PPD is pretty impressive. . . . if you run it in windows you could use the vid card too, probably pull close to 25k. I would love to see Pande Group put out a GPU client for mac OS X.... I'm getting sick of running windows 90% of the time on my Mac Pro.

ebes hermosos - Car and

lord patton

Apr 13, 03:04 PM

Every time I feel regret for bad decisions I've made, I think, "Yeah, but at least I'm not stupid enough to believe Apple will start selling televisions."

Every single competitive advantage Apple could bring to market already exists inside a tiny little box called the Apple TV... a device that they actually, you know, sell.

You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.

Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.

Nope. I see every issue from the consumer perspective - as I should (being a consumer). Any other perspective would be an abomination (unless for those who hold tons of AAPL shares). Phrases like "in Apple's eyes" is a good example of what I am talking about. Apple does not use iPhones, consumers do. Consumer eyse are the only eyes that matter. And that is exactly why people are switching to Android. If Apple cares more about what they think is right than what I think is right (for me) it would be stupid for me to care about what Apple thinks or does.

They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.

I doubt that but even if that was the case then what? Every other phone manufacturer on the planet can design a phone that has LTE and Apple could not? Because they spend on R&D much less than any other hi-tech company of comparable size?

And there we have it friends! This guy has no clue what he's talking about. There are no hybrid LTE/3G chips available yet, so the multiple chips thing has nothing to do with GSM/CDMA. If Apple wanted to support 3G AND LTE which they would have to do considering how scarce LTE is at the moment, the only way for them to do it is to use two chips. Battery life would drain.

Here's a site for you to consider: Thunderbolt Battery Life (http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/03/18/htc-thunderbolt-battery-life/)

This is what people are talking about when they say the iPhone's battery life would be horrible. It has nothing to do with a hybrid CDMA/GSM chip, and has everything to do with the lack of a hybrid 3G/LTE chip.

In fact, hybrid CDMA/GSM chips exist, and are already being used by Apple.

You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:

"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year. Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."

As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.

de ebés hermosos de Kari,

whooleytoo

Jul 25, 05:56 AM

This would be a nice UI for ebooks - just swipe your finger/hand across the display to turn the page.

The None-Touch (presumably so named as it sounds more pleasing than "Non-Touch", and is a play on "One-Touch") name would imply that at least some control can be achieved without touching the screen.

If you look at the illustrations, this is far larger than an iPod screen, especially for two handed control as depicted. Not that the tech can't be used for an iPod, but my guess this is going to be a tablet-like device positioned somewhere between the iPod and iMac. Steve Jobs and Apple have stated before that the Intel deal lets them envision a whole range of products not out there, especially fast chips that use less power. Also, macsimimumnews has revealed a trademark filing for a "doPod" that seems to suggest an iPod on steroids.

I believe this is a companion device that's not quite a full mac, but more functionality than an iPod, and be sized somewhere in between. At home, it could connect to your network and control your music through AirPort Express, or movies on FrontRow through your TV. Or you can take it with you and watch movies, check email, or read books (tying in the Engadget rumor on books). To keep the price point reasonable, I imagine it will be mostly a "player" rather than running full-fledged apps, but something like e-mail could be possible with the touch screen.

I'm guessing that the touchless interface could be a major part of Leopard and point to a new breed of hardware and form factors that Steve J and Apple have been hinting at.

Bebes hermosos en la Laguna

mh81

Nov 29, 08:20 PM

These sunglasses are definitely on my list

http://simplysunglasses.com/image.php?type=P&id=3971

http://simplysunglasses.com

Tones2

Apr 26, 02:43 PM

not everyone wants a dedicated home server that they load everything on and let it run 24 hours a day. We just have a MBA.... i'm not gonna load all my music on there and leave it plugged in 24 hours a day. Just not gonna happen.

Exactly. It's more than just the $5 for the app and the data cap/bandwidth issues. It is wear and tear on a machine that has to be left on 24/7. It is the hydro cost of running that machine 24/7 instead of turning it off when you go out (this alone may well add up to more than $20/year!) If you don't want your main machine on 24/7 then it is the cost of another Mac mini or NAS or other device to act as the server instead.

It is also wear and tear on your 2 TB drive that has to be on 24/7, as opposed to working more like a backup drive that's only activated occasionally to back up your music files. It is the hassle of ensuring AudioGalaxy and your server and your ISP internet connection are all up and running when you need them to be (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.)

$20/year might well be worth it for the uptime and hydro considerations alone.

I don't have a dedicated server, just my normal home PC that I have iTunes on that I already sync my iPhone to. I put it in SLEEP mode - it consumes almost no power unless it's gets "woken up" by the streaming app, after which it puts itself back to sleep. It doesn't run 24 hours a day - only when I stream or am actually using it. Maybe 4 hours. I never have an issue.

All the rest of the stuff (dealing with power outages, internet outages, maintenance, restarts, software updates, etc.) is nonsense. It's what I do normally or would only very remotely occur.

Tony

twoodcc

Dec 2, 06:52 PM

i'm already over it, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much. if i were to be credited all the stuff over the years i should have been im sure id have 100s of thousands more points :(

yeah i'm over it as well

mjteix

Apr 13, 10:35 AM

Technical issues aside - odds are that Apple would rather sell you a new Mac Pro with Thunderbolt onboard.

That would mean video onboard too. Which would not be completly dumb since the MP also plays the role of the Xserve now, and that some usages don't need a powerful gpu. For those usages that need one (or two), the PCIe slots are there, and the onboard Thunderbolt port(s) could be used as data port(s) only.

The other way, is to release graphics cards including Thunderbolt port(s), and since Apple offers only a couple of them for the MP, it shouldn't be that complicated, especially when future Xeon SB cpus will offer 24/40 PCIe 3.0 lanes per cpu. A 16x PCIe 3.0 slot could accomodate 16x 2.0 lanes for the gpu itself and up to 16x 2.0 lanes for Thunderbolt controllers...

I think that Intel wants Thunderbolt to carry video no matter what, that's, I believe, the reason why they said "no PCIe upgrade card" for existing computers. Someone can probably make a 16x PCIe 2.0 combo card with gpu + Thunderbolt, but the gpu would have to be connected thru only 8x lanes with 4x/8x lanes for the Thunderbolt port(s). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not... Technically, there's no reason why it can't be done.

In any case, Intel will release Thunderbolt's Developer Kits this quarter, so more technical info will be available, and some questions may be answered.

jmous

Oct 24, 08:49 AM

I have compared the tech specs to the google cache. The battery time has been updated from 4.5 to 5 hours on the 15 inch. 17 inch remained the same.

CPTMONK

Oct 24, 07:59 AM

the 15inch hasnt got a 7200 hard drive will that really matter cause im gonna buy it and i do video editing but the 17 is too big